Deccan Herald
25 March 2009
BJP's double talk: Will they ever learn?
By B G Verghese
It's a cause for worry that policies presented as exercises in electoral persuasion should be so vicious and divisive.
Varun Gandhi’s best qualification currently appears to be that he has managed to obtain anticipatory bail. What an inglorious certificate to carry. His Pilibhit election speeches have been aired and there is no escaping the meaning of what he intended to convey.
To plead that the tapes were doctored to add sentences he did not utter because they were not immediately aired and his voice sounded gruff rather than soft, strains credulity. In any event the Election Commission has rightly held that it is not for it to disprove his charge but for him to adduce convincing proof in support of his contention.
Speakers at the hustings rarely speak softly. More often than not they rant in tone and content. But apart from finding little reason to believe that the tape was tampered with, Varun himself justified much of what he said and sought to contexualise it in the background of a series of rape cases in the constituency that were soon disproved.
BJP’s many voices
The BJP tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Initially, the party dissociated itself from him in view of his denial. Yet it endorsed him as the party candidate for the Pilibhit seat. The Shiv Sena openly applauded Varun’s hate speech as a frank espousal of the Hindutva cause while more than one report has suggested that not all Parivar cadres are displeased by his remarks which obviously echo their own sentiments.
It is certainly a cause for worry that policies and programmes presented as exercises in electoral persuasion and future governance should be so vicious and divisive. What the outcome of the charges levelled against Varun Gandhi will be remains to be seen, and both Advani and Mohanrao Bhagwat, the new chief of the RSS, should introspect on what they stand for and where they are headed to, pious disavowals notwithstanding.
None of these negative trends is unique. The BSP’s list of Lok Sabha candidates from UP includes five persons facing murder charges and two nominees allegedly involved in other crimes. Five wives have been given tickets.
In announcing this list Mayawati has appealed to the UP electorate to return the BSP in sufficient numbers so that she can be prime minister though her ‘manifesto’, thus far revealed, is vacuous.
Other partiers have also dredged dirt to pick up candidates. At least two Hindu right extremists who have been in the news of late for all the wrong reasons, are seeking court permission to contest the elections. Whatever the law, it is morally wrong to release such undertrials on bail to contest elections and, if they perchance win, to claim thereafter that they have been exonerated by the ‘people’s court’ and now stand above the law in their new avatar.
It is in this context heartening to see bright new and younger candidates entering the lists, some of them with proven records and achievements. Shashi Tharoor (Congress, Thiruvananthapuram) and Mallika Sarabhai (Independent, Gandhinagar), are two among them. Win or lose, their presence will add some leavening to the campaign and compel the electorate and their opponents — Advani in Gandhinagar — to take note of the issues they raise.
The other focus of excitement is the new alignments being forged between parties and coalitions. Even as the BJD has walked out of the NDA, Lalu’s RJD and Paswan’s LJP — both UPA partners, have tied up a seat-sharing arrangement that has left the Congress out in the cold. Speculation is rife, as elsewhere, about the fallout; but what must be remembered is that candidatures, party alliances and friendly contests will continue to be fought over until the last date of withdrawal in each phase in a game of brinkmanship. The tussle may be a little keener this time but the pattern is familiar.
Post-poll machinations
The other issue being debated is the merits and sanctity of pre-poll versus post-poll alliances and whether joint manifestos or common minimum programmes will issue and when. These are all matters of tactics and much will depend on the results in terms of party numbers and personalities.
That there will be hard post-poll bargaining among and within the major parties and formations goes without saying. But this is not uncommon elsewhere, as in Europe and Israel. There is no reason to baulk at this and assume that chaos will ensue. At worst, a government will be formed as unlikely partners get together to prevent a vacuum with every expectation that subsequent upheavals could lead to fresh elections.
Fresh elections are not to be feared as they will serve to sift the grain from the chaff. It will be for the president and the governors to maintain cool heads and, if necessary, to summon the House and by floor tests determine which party or combination enjoys the confidence of members. It is giving undue time for and, indeed, inviting horse trading by seeing parades and letters of ‘majority’ support is what must be avoided. These are bad practices.
|
